Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

More functional C#

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 98 posts

Re: More functional C#

#11

Post by Dewie »

I have read a lot of lang. wars and complaints about programming languages... but C# is one of the only languages that I can't remember reading any complaints about. None.

I must conclude, by the usual Stroustrup quote, that no one uses C#. (yes this is tongue in cheek)

Re: More functional C#

#12

Post by egeozcan »

Dewie wrote: post #11

I have read a lot of lang. wars and complaints about programming languages... but C# is one of the only languages that I can't remember reading any complaints about. None. I must conclude, by the usual Stroustrup quote, that no one uses C#. (yes this is tongue in cheek)

Well, I use it =) C# is a language with a somewhat limited market ("Enterprise" applications running on Windows Servers, and yes, I know about Mono). And in this market, a very strict subset of C# (see: Java) is happily used. I know a lot of people who refrain from using even lambdas and implicit typing, let alone the other "fringe functional stuff", because "they make things complicated".

Re: More functional C#

#16

Post by jagawhowho »

egeozcan wrote: post #12
Dewie wrote: post #11

I have read a lot of lang. wars and complaints about programming languages... but C# is one of the only languages that I can't remember reading any complaints about. None. I must conclude, by the usual Stroustrup quote, that no one uses C#. (yes this is tongue in cheek)

Well, I use it =) C# is a language with a somewhat limited market ("Enterprise" applications running on Windows Servers, and yes, I know about Mono). And in this market, a very strict subset of C# (see: Java) is happily used. I know a lot of people who refrain from using even lambdas and implicit typing, let alone the other "fringe functional stuff", because "they make things complicated".

You're not giving mono the credit it's due.

Re: More functional C#

#17

Post by ryeguy »

Touche wrote: post #7

But why do things "near functional" when you have F# which is fully functional?

This argument makes no sense. If you're using C#, and you want to use its functional features, they're available and powerful. It's not like this is some dirty hack.

Re: More functional C#

#19

Post by V-2 »

egeozcan wrote: post #12
Dewie wrote: post #11

I have read a lot of lang. wars and complaints about programming languages... but C# is one of the only languages that I can't remember reading any complaints about. None. I must conclude, by the usual Stroustrup quote, that no one uses C#. (yes this is tongue in cheek)

Well, I use it =) C# is a language with a somewhat limited market ("Enterprise" applications running on Windows Servers, and yes, I know about Mono). And in this market, a very strict subset of C# (see: Java) is happily used. I know a lot of people who refrain from using even lambdas and implicit typing, let alone the other "fringe functional stuff", because "they make things complicated".

   C# is a language with a somewhat limited market 
   ("Enterprise" applications running on Windows Servers,
   and yes, I know about Mono)
One would think that Windows Phone - fastest growing smartphone OS - would go before Mono... geez, I make a living out of desktop C# apps (WPF). Not solely, but on a daily basis.
Post reply on HN